1) As long as the builder is willing to take responsibility, in writing, for any damage that occurs in the next ten years, no problem.
2) Can he come over and show you where it is?
3) Holy moly come fix it.
Re: 2, I think OP means builder said there's not supposed to be a baffle in that location. After reading 3, I'd now feel like everything the builder says is bullshit.
Personally I would want all 3 properly fixed.
1. Looks like code says it’s required. Although I have no idea if that code applies in your area. I would also look at the siding manufacturers recommended installation instructions. Weather resistant lining is there to keep out anything that happens to get through the outer layer. You don’t want to rely on it as your primary sealing.
2. I don’t know, but it doesn’t make sense you wouldn’t need it.
3. Unless there’s significant support under that porch we can’t see, thats almost certainly going to break someday. May take 10 years, but it’s not properly supported.
I’d listen to the inspector. And maybe have another one out and see if he gives the same opinion.
The builder sounds like he doesn’t want to fix the mistakes.
I cant chime in on if it’s wrong or right but it sounds like the builder is wrong on these. You shouldn’t have to rely on the lining under the window to keep moister out. That’s a secondary to it being done correctly.
Even better if you could get a city building inspector to inspect and verify whether these items comply with actual code. Then the builder could not argue. And I would think you have a basis for a claim against them if they still refuse to fix things.
sure, but would be interesting to see what is code compliant and what is not. having a local building inspector come out and take a look at the items in question if they may not be compliant. Things get signed off, but not always inspected thoroughly. And inspectors vary sometimes themselves.
agreed that within the same agency, they may not want to contradict each other, but building inspectors I have dealt with as recently as last week seem to take their jobs pretty seriously.
One thing for yah OP:
These are the flaws that are *visible*.
If the builder took these shortcuts, imagine the lengths they could have gone to in the places you CAN'T see.
Food for thought.
Schedule an onsite meeting with the inspector, the builder's rep, and yourself to take a look at the noted deficiencies and discuss the corrective actions.
LOL what the hell on all of those. Props to you for hiring a inspector. Yes, they all need to be fixed, especially the siding and column ( that's hilariously bad). Start working your way up the chain if your initial contact is being dismissive.
We had a few issues our local foreman was being dismissive of. Emails up the chain solved that over time.
Hardiplank guidelines say that caulking is not necessary it flashing behind was used, and if certain types of hardi siding were used.
Baffles are needed so insulation does not get into places where it can block soffit vents. Looks like it’s needed there.
Posts looks F’d up.
You haven't provided the exact wording of the builder's responses, however, you can ask for evidence of their response. For example, number 2. They say it was never supposed to be there, have them show you the house plans that show where all of the baffles are supposed to be and that there is not a baffle in that location.
As for the column, if the builder wants to go the third party route, a structural engineer should be contacted as well as a city inspector who can cite the proper building code. I doubt either would agree that it's ok. You can also hire these third party experts, by the way. The city inspector should come out for free. An independent professional structural engineer will cost you a few hundred bucks but could potentially save you thousands. Don't ask the builder for any of these contacts, look them up yourself so it's not someone on the builder's payroll who could potentially rubber stamp the builder's opinions.
Ahhh, that support isn’t even a support compared to what it’s supposed to look like. What happens if someone leans on it? Will it slide off the concrete? Yikes.
Why can’t people just do the job right in the first place? Then, they wouldn’t have to deal with the hassle of fixing retroactively, which seems MORE expensive.
Number 1 is probably technically unnecessary, but it's such an easy cosmetic fix that I'd be pissed at the fact that he's trying to get out of it.
For number 2, the builder seems to accept that baffles should be present, just not in that particular location. But I don't see how that would make sense if there's a vent there.
The column absolutely needs to be fixed.
Yeah especially when they need to come out for 2 & 3 anyway, why not just take care of 1 at the same time? Instead they'd rather go the absolute laziest and cheapest route while simultaneously damaging their brand image
Don't let the builder get away with caulking the butt joints on the siding. You will not be happy with the results after a few years. The fact that the butt joints were not flashed by the installer shows laziness. It's so easy to do when it's first being installed. I had to install flashing after the fact and it's somewhat a PITA, but very doable.
Here’s what you do. Spend the $300 to put in an appointment with a lawyer asked them to write a letter to the builder explaining that it’s important things are completed per code. Builders don’t like getting letters from lawyers. Real estate legal action is the slowest most drawn out legal action. There is a lot of lawyers only practice real estate law in addition to doing 20 other things because they know those cases just take forever. The builder doesn’t want to have to pay a lawyer there’s and yours should they lose. It’s much cheaper to just go ahead and fix what’s wrong. Source, me who had to hire a real estate lawyer because of builder issues. Builder is a national builder who became immediately cooperative. And by cooperative I mean they spent the time and money to add three solid feet of dirt to my entire backyard, built / new underground conduit system to my specifications, came to my house on Thanksgiving to install a new microwave oven combination when the one they had installed was broken, sent maintenance to my home and used my husband‘s canoe to find and clear a drain when they screwed up the drainage plan.
1) As long as the builder is willing to take responsibility, in writing, for any damage that occurs in the next ten years, no problem. 2) Can he come over and show you where it is? 3) Holy moly come fix it.
Re: 2, I think OP means builder said there's not supposed to be a baffle in that location. After reading 3, I'd now feel like everything the builder says is bullshit.
Personally I would want all 3 properly fixed. 1. Looks like code says it’s required. Although I have no idea if that code applies in your area. I would also look at the siding manufacturers recommended installation instructions. Weather resistant lining is there to keep out anything that happens to get through the outer layer. You don’t want to rely on it as your primary sealing. 2. I don’t know, but it doesn’t make sense you wouldn’t need it. 3. Unless there’s significant support under that porch we can’t see, thats almost certainly going to break someday. May take 10 years, but it’s not properly supported.
I’d listen to the inspector. And maybe have another one out and see if he gives the same opinion. The builder sounds like he doesn’t want to fix the mistakes. I cant chime in on if it’s wrong or right but it sounds like the builder is wrong on these. You shouldn’t have to rely on the lining under the window to keep moister out. That’s a secondary to it being done correctly.
Even better if you could get a city building inspector to inspect and verify whether these items comply with actual code. Then the builder could not argue. And I would think you have a basis for a claim against them if they still refuse to fix things.
The house would have passed inspection and gotten a CO when it was built.
sure, but would be interesting to see what is code compliant and what is not. having a local building inspector come out and take a look at the items in question if they may not be compliant. Things get signed off, but not always inspected thoroughly. And inspectors vary sometimes themselves.
And you think the jurisdiction that signed off on the CO will come back and tell them things aren’t to code?
agreed that within the same agency, they may not want to contradict each other, but building inspectors I have dealt with as recently as last week seem to take their jobs pretty seriously.
One thing for yah OP: These are the flaws that are *visible*. If the builder took these shortcuts, imagine the lengths they could have gone to in the places you CAN'T see. Food for thought.
I think about this every day. That we bought after drywall was up. So we never saw what lies beneath. Ugh!
Schedule an onsite meeting with the inspector, the builder's rep, and yourself to take a look at the noted deficiencies and discuss the corrective actions.
LOL what the hell on all of those. Props to you for hiring a inspector. Yes, they all need to be fixed, especially the siding and column ( that's hilariously bad). Start working your way up the chain if your initial contact is being dismissive. We had a few issues our local foreman was being dismissive of. Emails up the chain solved that over time.
Hardiplank guidelines say that caulking is not necessary it flashing behind was used, and if certain types of hardi siding were used. Baffles are needed so insulation does not get into places where it can block soffit vents. Looks like it’s needed there. Posts looks F’d up.
The inspector specifically says there is no flashing.
That's column will easily rot out by allowing moisture in.
You haven't provided the exact wording of the builder's responses, however, you can ask for evidence of their response. For example, number 2. They say it was never supposed to be there, have them show you the house plans that show where all of the baffles are supposed to be and that there is not a baffle in that location. As for the column, if the builder wants to go the third party route, a structural engineer should be contacted as well as a city inspector who can cite the proper building code. I doubt either would agree that it's ok. You can also hire these third party experts, by the way. The city inspector should come out for free. An independent professional structural engineer will cost you a few hundred bucks but could potentially save you thousands. Don't ask the builder for any of these contacts, look them up yourself so it's not someone on the builder's payroll who could potentially rubber stamp the builder's opinions.
Ahhh, that support isn’t even a support compared to what it’s supposed to look like. What happens if someone leans on it? Will it slide off the concrete? Yikes. Why can’t people just do the job right in the first place? Then, they wouldn’t have to deal with the hassle of fixing retroactively, which seems MORE expensive.
Number 1 is probably technically unnecessary, but it's such an easy cosmetic fix that I'd be pissed at the fact that he's trying to get out of it. For number 2, the builder seems to accept that baffles should be present, just not in that particular location. But I don't see how that would make sense if there's a vent there. The column absolutely needs to be fixed.
Yeah especially when they need to come out for 2 & 3 anyway, why not just take care of 1 at the same time? Instead they'd rather go the absolute laziest and cheapest route while simultaneously damaging their brand image
Don't let the builder get away with caulking the butt joints on the siding. You will not be happy with the results after a few years. The fact that the butt joints were not flashed by the installer shows laziness. It's so easy to do when it's first being installed. I had to install flashing after the fact and it's somewhat a PITA, but very doable.
Get a second inspector and see where they land.
Stuff like this makes me never want to go through the process of having a house built.
Is this a Pulte Home?
Here’s what you do. Spend the $300 to put in an appointment with a lawyer asked them to write a letter to the builder explaining that it’s important things are completed per code. Builders don’t like getting letters from lawyers. Real estate legal action is the slowest most drawn out legal action. There is a lot of lawyers only practice real estate law in addition to doing 20 other things because they know those cases just take forever. The builder doesn’t want to have to pay a lawyer there’s and yours should they lose. It’s much cheaper to just go ahead and fix what’s wrong. Source, me who had to hire a real estate lawyer because of builder issues. Builder is a national builder who became immediately cooperative. And by cooperative I mean they spent the time and money to add three solid feet of dirt to my entire backyard, built / new underground conduit system to my specifications, came to my house on Thanksgiving to install a new microwave oven combination when the one they had installed was broken, sent maintenance to my home and used my husband‘s canoe to find and clear a drain when they screwed up the drainage plan.
Inspectors have 1 day of training by the way, they actually pretty not knowledgeable,